Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Interesting serious starting on PT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Careful -- that could cause liver failure!

    K54
    Liver failure is preferred over the monster headaches caused by
    reading some of the stuff posted here. Hey, I've taken plenty
    of the Extra-Extra-Strength stuff after reading your howlers!

    Jorge

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      Yes, I recognize that the goal from your perspective is to 'win'. That is not my goal. My goal is to understand and get to the correct conclusion. If that means I 'lose' so be it. I'm interested in what is true, not being 'right'. If I come to understand the truth even if it means the other guy had the right idea, then I have 'won'. It's as simple as that.





      What type of literature Genesis is is not irrelevant Glenn, it is critical. And I'm not trying to tell you what type of literature it is, as if it is arbitrary. I'm trying to lay out the evidence that supports my conclusion about what type of literature it is. But you seem to have already decided one can't know what kind of literature it is. And this may be one of the fundamental axioms you and I have that are different. I believe the type of literature is both important and discoverable.



      You need to look at the entire paragraph to understand the sentence Glenn. Here it is:



      What I am saying is that is what I did, not what I am doing. I'm explaining the mistake of my approach so I can follow it up with an explanation of how I resolved it.




      No, it is not. Raqia is NOT Raqa. They are two different but related words. Raqa is the beat out and its most immidiate application is to metal work. Pounding out metal to form it into an object. Raqia is a beaten out thing, strong, hard. As in Ezekial, crystaline. Job's friends refer to the sky as made of cast metal. It supports the waters above, and it has sluices to let the water through. The culture of the time, the word as used, and as used again in ezekiel. There is really no reason to be averse to this translation unless you know the sky is not a hard dome. Then we go looking for something else it might mean.



      I'm sorry you had that reaction to him. I think he takes accommodation too far myself. But his research on this issue I believe is sound, and enlightening.




      Ezekiel 1:22-26, 10:1.



      I don't think so at all. If the description of the structure falls into some non-technical category then there is no reason to declare the remainder IS technical. Indeed, the door is wide open now. Any portion of it may or may not be technical. And how do we figure out which is which? Well, given there is NO other text to go on other than this text for these issues, we must rely on that most basic element for differentiating metaphor from literal truth: our knowledge of reality itself. If I say what a pretty sunset, I don't mean the sun is literally setting. And you know that because you know and I know the earth is rotating. Likewise the raqia. Likewise the days. We know certain things about the world. And they tell us enough to know this text isn't literal history.




      I tend to agree. We are expressing a similar thing. The reason I say scripture is that by adopting a reading of the text that forces the use of false science, they do violence to it. But their motivations are very similar to yours: they can't accept Genesis as a metaphor and also as inspired or true.





      Nah - it's that they just don't understand the text is not about giving a literal history of the creative act. And one way we can know that because if we try to read it that way, it isn't right. But the best way is to just look at how the text relates to its own time and culture.





      Yes, I understand many think its a polemic against the Babylonian Pantheon rather than the Egyptian Pantheon. I tend to side towards it being Egyptian in origin. But the text was not written down until during the Exile, so I would not be surprised if it does not contain elements of both. To prove them wrong I must show it is only one and not the other. But that is likely not the case. Now You may get all upset about me not being hard edged on this, but an oral tradition is going to have a source and a history and I don't see any reason to presume it must be one and not also the other.

      What will twerk you a bit is that to me, as regards this particular topic, it doesn't matter a whole lot if its one, the other, or both. The text is not history in either case, and which case has the most evidence doesn't change that element of how to understand the text. Where it does matter is as it relates to the reality of the Exodus, a different topic. What I see is sufficient correlation to the Egyptian account to ascribe that as its original function.



      Really - you will quibble over stuff like that?





      Yes I have Glenn. That statement is nothing but a projection of your own opinion of my knowledge. I would ask how have you reacted in the past when someone has doubted the thoroughness of your own research? And are you then exempt from the Golden Rule?




      as regards what type of literature Genesis 1 is, you should believe what the data implies Glenn.




      You imply there is incongruence when there is none. It is an account of creation. Just not a historical one in the sense you and YEC's seek. The evidence implies it is an account of creation that serves primarily to function according to what an ancient creation account was supposed to be, and not as what we in the 21st century would regard as a necessarily obvious function for such a text. It tells the Jewish reader who he is in relation to who God is and in relation to his obligations to Jewish life and religion. Part of that function involves acting as a polemic against the pagan religions around him. At least, that is what I see the data pointing to.

      But we have diverged. We are debating what we think what the text is rather than the axioms on which we evaluate the truth of the text. As I mentioned above, one of those critical axiom differences appears to be that you tend to think the purpose of the text is unknowable. That something like it being a polemic against local polytheism (originally Egyptian) is impossible to know. I disagree. I think the text literally cries out that is in fact what it is. And that to ignore that is to end up in error.



      No Glenn. You are taking a black and white approach. Yes, I am saying the evidence would indicate the Genesis 1 account IS a polemic against (originally) Egyptian polytheism. But NO, I am not saying that is the ONLY thing it is. I am ALSO saying that the evidence shows Genesis 1 does NOT function well as a historical description, at least not in any scientifically accurate sense. And that is clearly demonstrated by how it describes the structure of cosmos (dome with waters above) and its historical time frame (6 'days'). So what I'm saying is that the evidence sets up certain boundaries, positive and negative, for what Genesis 1 can be. But I am not saying there is one and only one correct view within those boundaries that can be clearly identified by what is currently known.


      Jim
      Gee, I don't know what to say. I consider it the worst possible insult to say that all I am interested in is winning. That means, that no matter what I say, you will interpret it as nothing to actually listen to, but merely some flotsam in an amoral attempt to win the argument. I have defined what I consider truth, and I consider that the only methodology to arrive at truth is an experimental/testing method. Nothing else will lead us to truth. It is the methodology upon which science is based.

      So, yes, Jim, I do take a black and white view of things. Either Jesus rose from the dead in history, or he didn't. that is dang black and white. Either he was born of a virgin in history or he wasn't. Again black and white. The truth is out there but we can't ascertain it without some kind of methodology, and in these two cases, there is no methodology with which to determine if those events are actual historical events.

      Now, when it came to the Flood, there is a process for determining the truth. The Flood either happened in history or it didn't. If it happened, then it was either global or it wasn't, meaning it was local. Floods leave geological records of themselves. They either exist or they don't. If they do exist, do they match the account? They either do, or they don't. All of this is quite a black and white approach. It is called an evidentiary process. This is what I meant by 'chess player' when you insulted my ethics. I run the ramifications, I look for the implications, I run the logic tree ON EVERYTHING AND ON EVERY DEBATE I HAVE EVER BEEN IN. It lets me know what data needs to be looked at. I also used this approach in finding the billion bbl of oil I have been involved in finding in my career so far. It is why people hated to have me review their prospects.

      Then it comes to the creation account. God either created the universe or he didn't. It is a black and white issue, Jim. And here is where I find your approach absolutely abysmal. An analogy.

      A robber goes into a store to rob it. He is wearing a clown mask, a red flannel shirt, slacks, and NewBalance tennis shoes. A little bit of red hair sticks out from under the mask. He holds a gun on everyone and yells for them to pull out their wallets. He has them put the wallets in a bag he has placed on the counter one at a time. He then tells the store clerk to open the cash register, lift the drawer and give him the big bills hidden under there.

      One of the victims, takes an opportunity, when the gunman is looking another direction to tackle him, grabs the gun, knocks the guy out with the butt of the gun, and then, the guy carefully retrieves his wallet and only his wallet, wipes his fingerprints off the gun and leaves the store, giving the gun to the store owner, leaving the stunned fellow robbee's amazed. The camera never gets a good picture of this guy's face.

      A good samaritan wants to reward the unknown guy with $10,000. He asks the police to keep the tape confidential so that the mystery man can be found. The police oblige.

      A guy comes in and says he was the mystery savior of the day who rescued the would be victims. He is asked, "Tell us about what happened. He says "A guy came in wearing a bandana and a hoodie with a sawed off shotgun. He first demanded everyone get on the floor and then he went around picking the pockets and purses of the victims. He told the store owner to drop the cash drawer into a pillowcase. The robber had dark brown hair, wore a yellow shirt with blue jeans. I grabbed the shotgun and wrestled with the guy until I got it away from him. I was scared so I left."

      Would you beleive this guy? I wouldn't. From my vantage point your method looks like you would pay someone who came in and said "What Robbery? I was at the Park and gave a balloon to a little girl" DONG-DONG DONG, that guy gets the $10,000 cause he made the account about something totally different than a robbery. It

      And that brings me to why I think there has to be something historical in Genesis 1-3. A book that purports to be a message from the God who created the universe yet, the story told about the creation is so different than what actually happened, one has to wonder if that 'god' was even there at the time of creation. The description is so flawed, so horrendously wrong, that clearly it is made up and has nothing to do with the real creation.

      Under your, and most people's view of Genesis, we are forced to believe that the God of the Universe knew nothing about the creation at all, told us nothing at all other than what the human writer claimed (not even God, unless God speaks in the 3rd person). "In the beginning, God created..." Jehovah takes no credit, he was given credit by the human writer. THis is Plato's demi-urge who didn't even know he had created the world.

      The view that most people play, that Genesis is not to be taken with any kind of seriousness for historical details, only works if one has previously gone through all the religions of the world and demonstrated them to be false. Because, what if there is a religion out there that DOES tell in it's divine document, the REAL story of creation and we are unaware of it at present?

      I would certainly have to take a hard look at such a religion. My black and white view sets me up to one day give Christianity up but it also allows me to someday possibly, be proven correct. Your view Jim, is not even wrong for nothing can disprove it, no data can assail it, but you also can't ever be proven correct. You have a firmly held belief. You have no hard objective evidence.

      I see no reason, Jim for going further on this merry-go-round with you. We have said the same things to each other ad nauseum. It is time to find someone with an original view to debate.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
        Glenn, I'm not trying to argue here, but to better understand why the "ancient near eastern cosmology" view that Jim and I like bothers you so much.
        See my post immediately above. It is the entire logic chain of a purported God who knows nothing of what he did, who can't communicate what he did. There are thousands of religions out there with similarly ignorant Gods who are said to be the creator of the world, only they use things like ducks, peapod men, eggs etc.

        As far as I can see, your objection is NOT really that it makes the account non-historical, because your "days of proclamation" view takes the account out of human history as well. From what I understand, your main objection is that if the ancients thought of the raqi'a as a hard dome and described creation in these terms, then Scripture is teaching false science. You don't like the argument that Scripture is just using the ancient erroneous understanding as a vehicle to teach theology, maybe in part because the same argument could be used to argue against Christ's resurrection.
        If the Scripture is written by man alone, then all of what you say is absolutely true, it doesn't have to be historical, it is a rather boring but false history.

        If my understanding of your position is wrong here, please correct it. But if what I say is mostly correct, I have two follow-on questions for you:

        1) What about language all throughout the Scripture that uses "intestines" (or "bowels", "viscera", "guts") as the seat of emotions? (e.g. Is 16:11; Jer 4:9; 31:20; Ps. 40:8-9; Job 30:27; Col. 3:12; Phil. 2:1) The ancients actually believed that many emotions originated in the guts, so they spoke this way. We understand now that these things originate in the brain. Do you have problems with the "false science" that Scripture is teaching in these passages?
        Oh, I can understand that quite well from my own experience. My mother was quite abusive. I will not describe exactly what she did, this is mixed company after all, but when she flew into her rages and started to do the things she did, I remember quite well many times as a child, feeling the strong need to go to the bathroom. If you have not experienced fear like that, that deep, then you have no idea what they are talking about.

        2) What about the "death" of seeds? The ancients actually believed that seeds actually die and decompose when placed into the ground. We know now that this is false; the seed is living the entire time, germinating, and growing. Their scientific understanding was wrong. But Paul incorporated this wrong understanding and used the "death" of seeds as an argument for our future resurrection (1 Cor 15:35ff). Just as a seed dies and comes back as something better, so after we die we will be raised again with a new "resurrection body". Does this make you doubt the certainty of our future resurrection?

        [ABE: as an aside, this verse also shows the falsehood of the common YEC argument that "Scripture never speaks of plants as living or dying". There are at least four places in Scripture where "death" is used of plants, either of seeds (as here) or of trees or tree stumps.]
        Yeah, they were wrong, but the seed is buried and until it is buried, it does nothing, even if you keep it for years. I have less problem with that one because God isn't the one from whom the knowledge came in that case. There was only one being who could know what happened at creation and that is God. The only way to really know if you have the true God is if He tells you something true about creation. It is, if you will, a scientific test of God. Was he the good samaritan in the robbery? or the guy at the Park? And no one give me stuff about testing God. don't want to hear it.

        Comment


        • Oxymixmudd, why do you reject the possibility that the Creation story was handed down from Noah's family? As time went on, the story became distorted into many creation stories, two of which are Babylonian and Egyptian, what you cited. Moses needed to get the real God-approved version from the Lord God.
          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

          [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

          Comment


          • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
            And we're not "all fideists" either. That's a bastardization of the term, like using "slavery" in a minimum wage argument.
            I define fideism by the unwillingness of someone to change his "working philosophy" in the face of seemingly conflicting evidence. Not sure what your definition is, but you wrongly see things as black and white. Surely there is a continuum of unwillingness to change? Shades of gray.
            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

            [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
              Oxymixmudd, why do you reject the possibility that the Creation story was handed down from Noah's family? As time went on, the story became distorted into many creation stories, two of which are Babylonian and Egyptian, what you cited. Moses needed to get the real God-approved version from the Lord God.
              What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

              How do you explain the two stories?

              What does "God-approved" mean? God-approved as scientifically accurate history? God-approved as theology? What then?

              Your conjecture is completely useless. Believe it if you want, but Big Deal.

              And, BTW, the convention is to write LORD God for "YHWH Elohim."

              K54

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                I define fideism by the unwillingness of someone to change his "working philosophy" in the face of seemingly conflicting evidence. Not sure what [u]your[/I] definition is, but you wrongly see things as black and white. Surely there is a continuum of unwillingness to change? Shades of gray IOW.
                So how does this relate to the interpretation of the Genesis creation stories?

                K54

                P.S. BTW, I'd wager I'm at least as "willing to change" as you are. My views are driven by facts in search of truth.

                Fides quaerens intellectum and all that jazz.
                Last edited by klaus54; 06-15-2014, 07:43 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  Nutty analogy. It's anthropomorphic. We know when humans aren't present in a process. We don't know whether God is present in a process.
                  Well, observers or experimenters are always present. And maybe this should be cited: Acts 17:28 "For in him we live and move and have our being."[NIV]

                  To be sure, science is not science if it concerns itself with what we or God is doing; that is, it is primarily only interested in the workings of Nature. To understand Genesis in a scientific frame of mind, we need to be clear which part of Genesis is of God's doing and what part is not. To me that seems impossible. For one thing, God may have done stuff that for all our scientific knowledge we could only see as magical.

                  To illustrate a point that I'm trying to make, consider Jesus' walking on water. What if he made use of a natural principle that we simply don't know anything about at all?



                  That's the biggest fallacy with so called "intelligent design". Who or What is the Designer and how does the Designer work and how is he/she/it detectable?
                  "Fallacy." I would prefer "problem." I suspect science can neither confirm nor disconfirm ID. What if there are natural principles that we don't know? Or processes? Consider that it's only becoming clear that we need to see our bodies as partly bacterial in nature. Also, epigenetics seems to be a bona-fide field.
                  The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                  [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                    Well, observers or experimenters are always present. And maybe this should be cited: Acts 17:28 "For in him we live and move and have our being."[NIV]

                    To be sure, science is not science if it concerns itself with what we or God is doing; that is, it is primarily only interested in the workings of Nature. To understand Genesis in a scientific frame of mind, we need to be clear which part of Genesis is of God's doing and what part is not. To me that seems impossible. For one thing, God may have done stuff that for all our scientific knowledge we could only see as magical.

                    To illustrate a point that I'm trying to make, consider Jesus' walking on water. What if he made use of a natural principle that we simply don't know anything about at all?



                    "Fallacy." I would prefer "problem." I suspect science can neither confirm nor disconfirm ID. What if there are natural principles that we don't know? Or processes? Consider that it's only becoming clear that we need to see our bodies as partly bacterial in nature. Also, epigenetics seems to be a bona-fide field.
                    Science method can't explain miracles, which are targeted supernatural events for a specific purpose. Disagree with that definition if you wish. I couldn't care less.

                    But Elohim creating freshly cooled granite having a radiometric age of a billion years by "miracle" would serve no purpose but to deceive.

                    And the lack of identification of the designer and thus how the designer works is a problem for ID as well as a fallacy. It becomes scholastic. You might as well be proposing a method of determining how many cherubim can dance on the head of an 8-penny nail.

                    K54

                    P.S. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
                    Last edited by klaus54; 06-15-2014, 09:14 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                      Oxymixmudd, why do you reject the possibility that the Creation story was handed down from Noah's family?
                      I'll answer that : Rabid denials to the contrary notwithstanding, the reason why O-Mudd and those like-minded reject even the possibility of the Bible's literal Creation account is simply that THEIR version of how things happened cannot co-exist with the Bible's version - one of them has to go. And so, Truthseeker, guess which one O-Mudd et al. have freely chosen to toss out?

                      Jorge

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                        Oxymixmudd, why do you reject the possibility that the Creation story was handed down from Noah's family? As time went on, the story became distorted into many creation stories, two of which are Babylonian and Egyptian, what you cited. Moses needed to get the real God-approved version from the Lord God.
                        Very good reasons: (1) There is absolutely no evidence for this. (2) Linguistically the Hebrew language is considerably younger then the above claim of the origins of the story.
                        (3) There is abundant evidence for the evolution of these stories in different forms form cuneiform tablets, and Egyptian sources.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeareís Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                          Very good reasons: (1) There is absolutely no evidence for this. (2) Linguistically the Hebrew language is considerably younger then the above claim of the origins of the story.
                          (3) There is abundant evidence for the evolution of these stories in different forms form cuneiform tablets, and Egyptian sources.
                          The language argument is particularly powerful.

                          K54

                          Comment


                          • So, Shunyadragon and Klaus, you are convinced that the Noah transmission of the Genesis stories is conclusively disproven. Bah.
                            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                            [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                            Comment


                            • I just read something that I think readers of this thread, especially the posters, should read
                              http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/20...as-literature/
                              It bears on how the Bible should be read and interpreted. Might save a lot of posts and hours of "arguing."
                              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                              [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                                So, Shunyadragon and Klaus, you are convinced that the Noah transmission of the Genesis stories is conclusively disproven. Bah.
                                Not disproven, but unlikely. For a "Truthseeker" you seem little concerned with facts.

                                K54

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 08:26 AM
                                13 responses
                                32 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post alaskazimm  
                                Started by lee_merrill, Yesterday, 08:03 PM
                                6 responses
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 08:10 AM
                                2 responses
                                12 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 11-24-2021, 08:21 AM
                                2 responses
                                13 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by lee_merrill, 11-16-2021, 09:11 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post lee_merrill  
                                Working...
                                X